Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state , 231 Ariz. 362 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                     SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
    En Banc
    FRANK HOFFMAN,                    )    Arizona Supreme Court
    )    No. CV-12-0149-PR
    Petitioner, )
    )    Court of Appeals
    v.               )    Division Two
    )    No. 2 CA-SA 12-0010
    THE HONORABLE TERRY L. CHANDLER, )
    JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF    )    Pima County
    THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for )     Superior Court
    the County of Pima,               )    No. CR20113674
    )
    Respondent Judge, )
    )
    THE STATE OF ARIZONA; TUCSON CITY )    O P I N I O N
    PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE,              )
    )
    Real Parties in Interest. )
    __________________________________)
    Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County
    The Honorable Terry L. Chandler, Judge
    AFFIRMED
    ________________________________________________________________
    Order of the Court of Appeals Division Two
    Filed April 3, 2012
    ________________________________________________________________
    MARY C. TREJO, TUCSON PUBLIC DEFENDER                          Tucson
    By   Kristina Julie Bohn, Deputy Public Defender
    Attorney for Frank Hoffman
    MICHAEL G. RANKIN, TUCSON CITY ATTORNEY                    Tucson
    By   Baird S. Greene, Deputy City Attorney
    William F. Mills, Principal Assistant
    Prosecuting City Attorney
    Attorneys for State of Arizona and Tucson City Prosecutors
    Office
    ________________________________________________________________
    T I M M E R, Justice
    ¶1          Subsection     (A)(3)    of       A.R.S.   §   13-4033      authorizes    a
    defendant    to    appeal     a     post-judgment          order     that      affects
    substantial rights, while subsection (B) prohibits a defendant
    in   noncapital    cases    from    directly      appealing       any    judgment    or
    sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement.                       We today hold
    that subsection (B) bars a defendant from directly appealing a
    contested post-judgment restitution order entered pursuant to a
    plea agreement that contemplated payment of restitution up to a
    capped amount.      Any appellate review must be obtained through
    post-conviction relief proceedings.
    I.
    ¶2          The State charged Frank Hoffman with several offenses
    stemming from his involvement in a traffic accident that injured
    another person.      Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hoffman pleaded
    no contest to driving under the influence (“DUI”) and, among
    other things, agreed to pay restitution up to $53,653.45.                           The
    Tucson City Court adjudicated Hoffman guilty, imposed a term of
    probation, and ordered him to pay fines, fees, and restitution
    in   an   amount   to    be   determined         later,     but    not    to   exceed
    2
    $53,653.45.
    ¶3            Approximately      three    months       later,    the    court    held    a
    contested     restitution       hearing      and   entered      an   order     requiring
    Hoffman to pay $40,933.45 in restitution.                       Hoffman appealed to
    the superior court, which subsequently dismissed the appeal on
    the State’s motion.             Relying on A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) and Rule
    17.1(e) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court
    ruled    that    Hoffman   waived      his     right    to   directly     appeal       the
    restitution order by entering into the plea agreement and could
    challenge the order only through Rule 32 post-conviction relief
    proceedings.        Hoffman      sought    special      action       relief    from    the
    court of appeals, which declined jurisdiction.
    ¶4            We granted review to clarify the scope of § 13-4033(B)
    a    purely     legal   issue     of     statewide       importance.            We    have
    jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona
    Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.
    II.
    ¶5            The   Arizona      Constitution       guarantees         defendants       in
    criminal prosecutions “the right to appeal in all cases.”                            Ariz.
    Const. art. 2, § 24.             Before 1992, a defendant could directly
    appeal    a     judgment   or    sentence       entered      pursuant     to     a    plea
    agreement.       A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989).              But the increasing number
    of these appeals was straining our appellate justice system.
    Ariz. State S., Fact Sheet for H.B. 2481, 40th Leg., 2d Reg.
    3
    Sess.        (Mar.     19,     1992).          Consequently,            the        legislature
    amended § 13-4033            and,    among    other       changes,      added       subsection
    (B), which provides:                “In noncapital cases a defendant may not
    appeal from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a
    plea agreement or an admission to a probation violation.”                                    1992
    Ariz. Sess. Laws 779.               The legislature, however, did not change
    what    is    now    subsection       (A)(3),      which    permits         a    defendant     to
    appeal       from    “[a]n     order    made       after    judgment            affecting     the
    substantial rights of the party.”                   § 13-4033(A)(3).
    ¶6             After the legislature added subsection (B), this Court
    amended Rule 17.1(e) to provide that a defendant in a noncapital
    case who pleads guilty or no contest “waives the right to have
    the appellate courts review the proceedings by way of direct
    appeal, and may seek review only by filing a petition for post-
    conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 and, if denied, a petition
    for     review.”        Order       Amending       Rule    17.1,       Arizona       Rules     of
    Criminal Procedure (Apr. 7, 1992).                        We have since held that a
    petition         for         post-conviction           relief          is         “the       only
    constitutionally         guaranteed          appeal”      after    a    defendant        enters
    into a plea agreement.               State v. Smith, 
    184 Ariz. 456
    , 458, 
    910 P.2d 1
    , 3 (1996); see also State v. Regenold, 
    226 Ariz. 378
    , 379
    ¶ 5, 
    249 P.3d 337
    , 338 (2011) (“[Rule] 32.1 provides the review
    process for defendants who plead guilty.”).
    ¶7             Hoffman argues § 13-4033(A)(3) authorizes his appeal
    4
    from the restitution order as a post-judgment order affecting
    his substantial rights.            The city court entered a “judgment” by
    adjudicating        Hoffman   guilty      of       DUI.        See       Ariz.   R.     Crim.    P.
    26.1(a) (defining “judgment” as including a court’s adjudication
    of guilt upon a defendant’s plea).                           Read in isolation, § 13-
    4033(A)(3) would authorize Hoffman to directly appeal the post-
    judgment      restitution     order       as       it       indisputably         affected       his
    “substantial rights.”           But we must “strive to construe a statute
    and    its    subsections     as    a   consistent             and       harmonious       whole.”
    State v. Wagstaff, 
    164 Ariz. 485
    , 491, 
    794 P.2d 118
    , 124 (1990).
    Thus, the issue is whether the restitution order is part of
    Hoffman’s “sentence” and thus not appealable under § 13-4033(B)
    ¶8            We interpret § 13-4033(B) to effect the legislature’s
    intent, looking first to the language of the provision.                                  Kent K.
    v.    Bobby   M.,    
    210 Ariz. 279
    ,       283      ¶    14,    
    110 P.3d 1013
    ,    1017
    (2005).        If    the   terms    are        ambiguous,           we     employ       secondary
    principles of statutory interpretation.                            Id.     We review issues
    of statutory interpretation de novo.                           State v. Arellano, 
    213 Ariz. 474
    , 477 ¶ 9, 
    143 P.3d 1015
    , 1018 (2006).
    ¶9            The    language      of   subsection             (B)       does     not     reflect
    whether a restitution order contemplated by a plea agreement but
    entered after entry of judgment is part of a “sentence,” and the
    legislature has not defined the term in A.R.S. §§ 13-105, -4033,
    or elsewhere.         Several reasons, however, convince us that such
    5
    an order is part of a “sentence” for purposes of subsection
    § 13-4033(B).          First,   considering      a   post-judgment     restitution
    order as part of a sentence furthers the legislative goal of
    eliminating direct appeals involving plea agreements.                         A.R.S.
    § 13-104 (providing statutes “must be construed . . . to . . .
    effect the objects of the law”); Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co.,
    
    188 Ariz. 380
    , 385, 
    936 P.2d 1274
    , 1279 (1997) (stating courts
    should interpret unclear statutes “to conform with general goals
    expressed     in   the     legislative        history”).      Before    the    1992
    amendment     to   §     13-4033,    defendants       who   entered    into    plea
    agreements    commonly      challenged        restitution   orders     on   appeal.
    See, e.g., State v. Nosie, 
    150 Ariz. 498
    , 499, 
    724 P.2d 584
    , 585
    (App. 1986); State v. O’Connor, 
    146 Ariz. 16
    , 17, 
    703 P.2d 563
    ,
    564 (App. 1985).         Although the legislature was presumably aware
    of such appeals when it sought to reduce the burden on appellate
    courts, cf. Taylor v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 
    198 Ariz. 310
    , 317 ¶ 21, 
    9 P.3d 1049
    , 1056 (2000) (assuming legislature’s
    knowledge of case law and insurance coverage needs), it did not
    expressly exclude restitution orders from the ambit of § 13-
    4033(B)
    ¶10          Second,     excluding    a   post-judgment      restitution       order
    entered pursuant to a plea agreement from the reach of § 13-
    4033(B) would create a hybrid system of appellate review.                      Under
    Hoffman’s view of § 13-4033(B), a defendant who pleads guilty
    6
    could     seek    appellate         review         of    a    contested      post-judgment
    restitution      order    on    direct     appeal         but    would    have     to     pursue
    review of remaining issues through Rule 32 proceedings.                                       This
    dual-track       review      would     unnecessarily             burden     the        appellate
    justice system and could lead to inconsistent results.                                 State v.
    Estrada, 
    201 Ariz. 247
    , 250-51 ¶ 16, 
    34 P.3d 356
    , 359-60 (2001)
    (stating court interprets and applies statute “in a way that
    will avoid an untenable or irrational result”).                              Cf. State v.
    Ovante,    
    231 Ariz. 180
    ,    184   ¶       10,    
    291 P.3d 974
    ,     978     (2013)
    (construing Rule 17.1(e) so as to avoid bifurcated appeals in
    capital cases).
    ¶11          Third,      the    legislature             mandates   restitution           when    a
    crime victim has suffered economic loss.                           A.R.S. § 13-603(C).
    Because this mandatory provision applies when a defendant enters
    into a plea agreement, and restitution is typically imposed at
    the time of sentencing, State v. Holguin, 
    177 Ariz. 589
    , 591,
    
    870 P.2d 407
    , 409 (App. 1993), the term “sentence” in § 13-
    4033(B) is most reasonably construed to include a post-judgment
    restitution order.
    ¶12          Hoffman points out that after the 1992 amendment to
    § 13-4033,        appellate          courts         have        continued         to      assume
    jurisdiction      over    direct       appeals           of   post-judgment        orders       by
    defendants       who   had     entered     plea          agreements.        But        with   two
    exceptions, see infra ¶¶ 13-14, none of the cases Hoffman cites
    7
    concerned       a        challenge       to     an          order   entered       as    a   direct
    consequence         of    a    plea    agreement’s            terms.        See   Regenold,    226
    Ariz. at 380 ¶ 12, 249 P.3d at 339 (reviewing sentence imposed
    as consequence of a contested probation violation); State v.
    Ponsart, 
    224 Ariz. 518
    , 521-22 ¶¶ 2-12, 
    233 P.3d 631
    , 634-35
    (App. 2010) (same); State v. Delgarito, 
    189 Ariz. 58
    , 59, 
    938 P.2d 107
    ,       108       (App.    1997)           (involving      a     challenged      order
    designating         an     offense       as        a       felony   although      offense     left
    undesignated at time of guilty plea and disposition).                                    Moreover,
    since 1992, appellate courts have routinely dismissed appeals of
    post-judgment orders that challenged plea agreement terms.                                    See,
    e.g., Fisher v. Kaufman, 
    201 Ariz. 500
    , 501 ¶¶ 5-6, 
    38 P.3d 38
    ,
    39 (App. 2001) (noting that § 13-4033(B) precludes direct appeal
    of     post-judgment           order     requiring            defendant      to   continue     sex
    offender registration because registration was contemplated in
    plea agreement); State v. Jimenez, 
    188 Ariz. 342
    , 344-45, 
    935 P.2d 920
    ,       922-23       (App.        1996)         (stating       that   §     13-4033(B)
    prohibited pleading defendant from directly appealing denial of
    motion to modify conditions of probation imposed at sentencing).
    ¶13           Hoffman cites two cases involving challenges to orders
    entered as a direct consequence of plea agreements.                                    In State v.
    Foy, 
    176 Ariz. 166
    , 167, 
    859 P.2d 789
    , 790 (App. 1993), the
    court    of     appeals        reviewed        a       post-judgment        restitution      order
    entered pursuant to a plea agreement.                               But because the court
    8
    assumed jurisdiction without commenting on the impact of § 13-
    4033(B),       that      decision        is    not       persuasive             with   regard     to   the
    statute’s meaning.
    ¶14            In State v. Unkefer, the court of appeals addressed
    the propriety of an order authorizing the state and a victim to
    record and enforce a restitution order twenty years after the
    trial court had ordered the defendant to pay the restitution
    amount pursuant to a plea agreement’s terms.                                     
    225 Ariz. 430
    , 432
    ¶¶ 3-5, 
    239 P.3d 749
    , 751 (App. 2010).                                    In a footnote, without
    explanation         or    citation        to     §       13-4033(B),             the     court    assumed
    jurisdiction pursuant to § 13-4033(A)(3).                                       Id. at 433 ¶ 6 n.4,
    239 P.3d at 752 n.4.                     As with Foy, because Unkefer did not
    consider § 13-4033(B), it does not alter our interpretation of
    that provision.            To the extent Foy and Unkefer conflict with our
    interpretation of § 13-4033 in circumstances like the one before
    us, we disapprove those cases.
    ¶15            Hoffman additionally argues that because the state may
    appeal     a    post-judgment             restitution                   order    that     affects      its
    substantial         rights      or      those     of          a    victim,       see     A.R.S.    §   13-
    4032(4),       it       would     be     absurd          to        interpret       §     13-4033(B)     as
    prohibiting         a    defendant        from       appealing             the    same     order.       We
    disagree.       Because the state cannot file a Rule 32 petition to
    obtain appellate review, it is not inconsistent in this context
    to    authorize          direct        appeal     for             the    state     but     deny   it    to
    9
    defendants.        Both parties are given a single route for appellate
    review.
    ¶16           Hoffman         further     argues          it    would      be    meaningless             for
    § 13-4033(A)(3)          to       authorize      a    direct         appeal      of     a    contested
    restitution        order      entered      after          judgment       only      to    have       §    13-
    4033(B) eliminate that right.                        Again, we disagree.                    Subsection
    (A)(3) applies generally to all post-judgment orders affecting a
    defendant’s        substantial           rights;          subsection            (B)     provides          an
    exception      when       such       orders      are           entered      pursuant          to        plea
    agreements.        See State v. Baca, 
    187 Ariz. 61
    , 66, 
    926 P.2d 528
    ,
    533 (App. 1996) (holding that § 13-4033(B) “impliedly amended”
    now-renumbered           §        13-4033(A)(3)).                 In       other        words,          when
    subsection     (B)       applies,        subsection            (A)     cannot      be       invoked       to
    authorize a direct appeal.
    ¶17           We    reject          Hoffman’s         related          contention            that        the
    restitution order in this case was not entered “pursuant to a
    plea    agreement”           because     he   contested              the    amount.           Although
    restitution was not precisely calculated in the plea agreement,
    Hoffman agreed to pay restitution not to exceed a capped amount
    and explicitly waived his right to pursue a direct appeal.                                               See
    State    v.   Phillips,           
    152 Ariz. 533
    ,      535,     
    733 P.2d 1116
    ,       1118
    (1987)    (holding           that    a   defendant             thoroughly        understands             the
    consequences        of       an    agreement         to    make       restitution           when        plea
    agreement caps the amount that may be ordered).                                          Even though
    10
    Hoffman contested the amount of restitution eventually entered,
    because this amount did not exceed the cap, it was entered as a
    direct    consequence      of     the    plea       agreement,     and    §    13-4033(B)
    therefore applied.         Cf. Regenold, 226 Ariz. at 379 ¶ 8, 249 P.3d
    at 338 (noting that when a plea agreement states a range of
    sentences,      the    pleading       defendant      receives     sentence         “pursuant
    to” the agreement when the sentence is ultimately imposed).
    ¶18          Finally, Hoffman argues that the grounds for relief
    under    Rule   32.1     might    not    encompass       a   challenge        to    a   post-
    judgment restitution order based on trial error that did not
    deprive the defendant of constitutional rights.                          Therefore, he
    contends, the legislature must have intended to permit direct
    appeal of such orders pursuant to § 13-4033(A).                          We reject this
    argument because its premise is flawed.                      As the State concedes,
    Hoffman is entitled to challenge the restitution order through
    Rule 32 proceedings because he has a constitutional right to
    appellate review.         Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24; Smith, 184 Ariz.
    at    458,   910   P.2d    at     3    (observing        that    the   “constitutional
    guarantee of appellate review in all cases is effectuated for
    pleading defendants” through Rule 32).                          We trust that courts
    will     broadly      interpret       Rule    32    to   preserve      the     rights      of
    pleading defendants to appellate review.
    III.
    ¶19          For the foregoing reasons, we hold that A.R.S. § 13-
    11
    4033(B) bars a defendant from directly appealing a contested
    post-judgment     restitution    order    entered     pursuant    to     a   plea
    agreement that contemplated payment of restitution and capped
    the   amount.     In   such   situations,    a   pleading   defendant        must
    vindicate   the   constitutionally       guaranteed    right     of    appellate
    review through Rule 32 post-conviction relief proceedings.                    We
    therefore affirm the superior court’s order dismissing Hoffman’s
    appeal.
    _______________________________________
    Ann A. Scott Timmer, Justice
    CONCURRING:
    _____________________________________
    Rebecca White Berch, Chief Justice
    _____________________________________
    Scott Bales, Vice Chief Justice
    _____________________________________
    A. John Pelander, Justice
    _____________________________________
    Robert M. Brutinel, Justice
    12